ODF Vs. OOXML File Counts On the Web

mrcgran writes "In eight months since Office 2007 was released to the general public (10 months since release to enterprise customers), there are fewer than 2,000 of these office documents posted on the Web. In the last three months, 13,400 more ODF documents have been added to the Web, with only 1,329 OOXML documents added. It would be hard for the Microsoft camp to spin ten times as many ODF documents added as OOXML documents, especially since 34% of those new documents were added on Microsoft.com. That isn't what I would call good traction for Microsoft's overwhelmingly dominant office suite."

Comments

Ha ha. Apology collision detected.

[twitter]

Office 2007 users don't like posting documents on the interweb.

But Office 2003 do? I know that M$ hates the internet and all, but another M$ apologist in the room has pointed to the existence of many ordinary .doc as proof of I don't know what.

You will have to try harder to mask OOXML's poor adoption rates.

The root problem is that there's a difference.

[twitter]

The problem, as I see it is people are using ODF/.doc/Microsoft-whatever to often for documents that are really supposed to be just electronically published documents.

The real problem is that there is still a difference. You should be able to edit documents with ease. "Publication formats" like pdf are kludges that get around the fact that .DOC produced different results on different machines. Word Perfect did not have this problem and was the defacto standard before MicroSquish got them. M$'s abandonment of thier binary format is an admission of this failure, but their new format does not fix it. ODF comes closer and is being used more.

It is remarkably good news that M$ has not been able to force .docx, ie7 or Vista.